New Discovery

Whoaaaa, you’re making all kinds of false accusations about this author. Your logic is warped and filled with fallacy! Is this the calibre of individual I’m dealing with in here? If it is, I will have to move on. :frowning:

The language gap can cause a problem as was shown by this author regarding how determinism is interpreted. Language caused a gap in understanding and it’s the same language that is clearing the misunderstanding up so that we can apply this knowledge effectively.

The topic that interests you is not a prerequisite to understanding that man’s will is not free and what this means for the benefit of all mankind.

It makes a difference since making choices from within indicate that external factors such as how you describe nature, or God himself, cannot force you like a domino to fall if you yourself (the “I” you call the self) don’t want to make that choice. The word “cause” is misleading. I’ll post this again and maybe you’ll get it this time.

The government holds each person responsible to obey the laws
and then punishes those who do not while absolving itself of all
responsibility; but how is it possible for someone to obey that which
under certain conditions appears to him worse? It is quite obvious
that a person does not have to steal if he doesn’t want to, but under
certain conditions he wants to, and it is also obvious that those who
enforce the laws do not have to punish if they don’t want to, but both
sides want to do what they consider better for themselves under the
circumstances. The Russians didn’t have to start a communistic
revolution against the tyranny that prevailed; they were not compelled
to do this; they wanted to. The Japanese didn’t have to attack us at
Pearl Harbor; they wanted to. We didn’t have to drop an atomic
bomb among their people, we wanted to. It is an undeniable
observation that man does not have to commit a crime or hurt
another in any way, if he doesn’t want to. The most severe tortures,
even the threat of death, cannot compel or cause him to do what he
makes up his mind not to do. Since this observation is
mathematically undeniable, the expression ‘free will,’ which has come
to signify this aspect, is absolutely true in this context because it
symbolizes what the perception of this relation cannot deny, and here
lies in part the unconscious source of all the dogmatism and
confusion since MAN IS NOT CAUSED OR COMPELLED TO
DO TO ANOTHER WHAT HE MAKES UP HIS MIND NOT
TO DO — but that does not make his will free.
In other words, if someone were to say — “I didn’t really want to
hurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the circumstances,”
which demonstrates that though he believes in freedom of the will he
admits he was not free to act otherwise; that he was forced by his
environment to do what he really didn’t want to do, or should he make
any effort to shift his responsibility for this hurt to heredity, God, his
parents, the fact that his will is not free, or something else as the
cause, he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himself
because absolutely nothing is forcing him against his will to do what
he doesn’t want to do, for over this, as was just shown, he has
mathematical control.

Just because you can’t demonstrate the fact that man’s will is not free given your background and experience does not mean that author hasn’t demonstrated that man’s will is not free. Please stop putting this author in the same basket as you. The author is not confused.

That is very true. All this author has shown is how to prevent the desire to strike a first blow by removing the causes that lead to it. Other than that, he could not predict what will bring you or anyone else greater satisfaction. He couldn’t know this, and it’s not necessary to demonstrate how this progressive future of “peace and prosperity” can become a reality.

Intellectual contraptions to anchor an “I” to? I think you are projecting onto me your own intellectual contraption. But you don’t see it. 8-[

I’m not stuck. I know that man’s will is not free and your idea of autonomy does nothing to prove it is free.

Tom Clark writes: Hey, get a load of this: over at WEIT Jerry Coyne says in response to my comment (#9) that I’m a compatibilist just because I say that we’re causally effective agents that are sometimes rational, self-controlled and autonomous. But of course I’m not a compatibilist, rather a pragmatic determinist who thinks that seeing that we don’t have contra-causal free will has significant implications for attitudes and social policy (which compatibilists generally don’t). He says I think determinism is demoralizing, which it isn’t if we see that we retain effective agency and make real choices in a deterministic (non-libertarian) universe. We are not puppets or mere meat robots. Too bad Jerry doesn’t get this since he’s setting back the cause of determinism acceptance by drawing false conclusions concerning it. Can I get a witness?

You do have the autonomy to stop if you want to, which only means you have the ability to stop if you want to. I’ve said this many times; autonomy does not mean free will. Additionally, determinism does not mean I can’t express myself when I know that what you’re saying about this discovery being an intellectual contraption of the author’s making is an intellectual contraption of your own.

Many philosophers believe that determinism means we have to be able to predict everything that is going to happen, which is false.

You aren’t obligated to believe anything if you don’t believe it, but your disbelief won’t stop this new world from coming about because others will understand these principles and want to help bring this knowledge to light.

That’s not true either. A discovery cannot be understood by a few people and have a major effect on the entire world.

Remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not
require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your
understanding for recognition and development. And now my friends,
if you care to come along, let us embark…the hour is getting late.

What you’re insinuating is that this can’t be a discovery because your idea of proof has to come from something other than what this author has proven. Wrong again.

First of all, it has been proved that man does not have free will for the reasons given. There is no reason to keep talking about autonomy as if this freedom to think and speak (of your own desire or volition) means that you have free will. You’re very confused here.

Believe what you want iambiguous if that’s what you must based on your preferences. Your responses are in sync with your beliefs that compel you to answer in this way…in the direction of greater satisfaction.

That’s because you are not understanding the simple nuance regarding the word “cause” that is misleading. Some people just won’t get it or want to get .
it. People are often invested in their own worldview and if something conflicts they will fight tooth and nail to try to find loopholes in order to retain their beliefs.

The only objective standard that is of extreme import is this hurting of others which only means doing something to someone that they don’t want done to themselves.

We are compelled by the laws of nature to think in the only way we can think. Choosing, based on those thoughts, are not free yet in everyday parlance, we can think for ourselves if it’s qualified to mean “we are free of any external force or pressure.”

In total perspective evil is not evil, but in everyday experience, we can use the term to mean a vicious crime; vicious meaning with great rage.

Evil (hurt to others) is still around. If you want to omit the word evil, then do so, but I’m referring to a hurt. We still have hurt in this world even though everything had to be, but that doesn’t mean that hurt and pain of this world has to continue.

What behaviors do people hold in contempt?

I get that iambiguous, but when this knowledge is brought to light, and everyone in the world can only benefit, government (controlling the masses by a few) will no longer be necessary. Most things will be privatized. Do you see how you’re jumping ahead which is a problem for this author.

Because volition still exists. Our agency is part of the causal process, which means we are not robots that are following a program like a domino. We, as agents, do get to choose but it’s not of our own free will. You can call it “free will” in a colloquial sense if it means there is nothing obstructing our ability to make a decision (which compatibilists and libertarians have defined as free will, which it is not). No, nature didn’t make you choose anything because nature (as separate from you) can’t push you in a direction you don’t want to go, which is what opponents of determinism believe is being proposed. And they are right, nothing can make a person injure or kill another if he doesn’t want t;, nothing can make a person hurt anyone if he doesn’t want to, for over this he has absolute (or mathematical) control. A person chooses to hurt because he wants to, since nothing can make him hurt another if he doesn’t want to. If you can’t wrap your head around this, hopefully you will eventually.

Obviously, what we do of our own volition is not of our own volition if everything is part of a deterministic process, but even here the meaning of “I did something of my own volition” can still mean “of my own desire,” even if at it’s root one’s choices are completely determined. It’s the same thing as saying “evil is not really evil if seen in total perspective”, but we can use the term “evil” to mean “hurt.” This is very problematic because saying that nothing is your choice, but nature’s choice, is shifting your responsibility to nature. You, as an agent, are still responsible for making the choice you made. Most choices are benign but many are not. These are the choices that this entire discussion revolves around because it deals with who is actually responsible in a no free will world? And if we aren’t free, how can our civilization function if we cannot blame those who couldn’t help themselves? That is the issue at hand.

No, not at all. We always have been in sync with God as nature. It’s just that now we have more knowledge and when it is applied to the environment, it allows us to remove the hurt in human relations by veering in a new direction but still in sync with the laws of our nature.

Maybe the nihilists will become optimists. Miracles do happen. :slight_smile:

Don’t talk yourself into it. Just follow the principles and you will be able to see for yourself (providing you understand the two-sided equation) that this is not a figment of anyone’s imagination but a real true discovery. :stuck_out_tongue:

But what makes you want to want or not want to make choice x? Is there one ‘you’ deciding what the other ‘you’ is going to want or not want? If so, what makes that ‘you’ decide what the second to last ‘you’ will decide what the last ‘you’ is going to want?

You claim to understand what compatibalism is and to have avoided it… butcha haven’t. You’re still in the Cartesian theater, I’m afraid.

Before I reply again about this, I want peacegirl to look at promethean 's post above this one. It’s a really good response to you.

My reply to you peacegirl is this:

The problem with this author is a very common problem with most people putting forth an argument, they don’t submit their argument by looking at the set of the argument acting upon itself.

This is called the self referential step.

For example:

What if someone thought your argument was absolutely true, but having freewill is the only thing that matters to them and brings them satisfaction, and then!! They realize, “wait! I can make freewill true just by always picking the worst possible choice, and I will be the defender of freewill for everyone, eventually, they’ll all see me as a hero, so, that’s the best possible choice!”

Your author never checked his own argument against its own set, and because of this, he wrote a failed argument. Had he checked it, he’d have seen the disproof and never would have published.

But instead, we are left with a nonsense book.

Peacegirl: It makes a difference since making choices from within indicate that external factors such as how you describe nature, or God himself, cannot force you like a domino to fall if you yourself (the “I” you call the self) don’t want to make that choice.

Promethean75: But what makes you want to want or not want to make choice x? Is there one ‘you’ deciding what the other ‘you’ is going to want or not want? If so, what makes that ‘you’ decide what the second to last ‘you’ will decide what the last ‘you’ is going to want?

Peacegirl: That sounds schizophrenic! I don’t think that would hold up in a court of law. “It wasn’t this me that told the other me to pull the trigger.” lol

Promethean75: You claim to understand what compatibalism is and to have avoided it… butcha haven’t. You’re still in the Cartesian theater, I’m afraid.

Peacegirl: I am not defining choices that are not OCD, addictions, or being forced at gunpoint as having a free choice. You’re wrong!

Ecmandu: Before I reply again about this, I want peacegirl to look at promethean 's post above this one. It’s a really good response to you.

My reply to you peacegirl is this:

The problem with this author is a very common problem with most people putting forth an argument, they don’t submit their argument by looking at the set of the argument acting upon itself.

This is called the self referential step.

Peacegirl: His astute observations and his reasoning based on those observations was accurate.

Ecmandu: For example:

What if someone thought your argument was absolutely true, but having freewill is the only thing that matters to them and brings them satisfaction, and then!! They realize, “wait! I can make freewill true just by always picking the worst possible choice, and I will be the defender of freewill for everyone, eventually, they’ll all see me as a hero, so, that’s the best possible choice!”

Peacegirl: No one can pick the worst possible choice. He would be picking the worst choice as his best choice in this situation to try to prove what he can’t.

Ecmandu: Your author never checked his own argument against its own set, and because of this, he wrote a failed argument. Had he checked it, he’d have seen the disproof and never would have published.

Peacegirl: What a joke! He spent his whole adult life refining his discovery so that others could understand it. He knew what he was saying!

Ecmandu: But instead, we are left with a nonsense book.

Peacegirl: A book you never read! Wow!

Peacegirl,

People don’t read books on message forums to engage in discussion or debate, they expect you to condense and defend it.

They might watch videos or read studies that are linked, but not whole books.

That’s basic forum etiquette …

As I pointed out, you’re argument is instructing people who only gain satisfaction from the idea of freewill, to commit the worst possible actions upon themselves and/or others.

You can’t wiggle out of that.

It never occurred to you or the author, that the ONLY thing that matters to a large majority of people is the existence of freewill.

The argument was never analyzing its own set upon itself.

This was an oversight of the author .

Ecmandu: Before I reply again about this, I want peacegirl to look at promethean 's post above this one. It’s a really good response to you.

My reply to you peacegirl is this:

The problem with this author is a very common problem with most people putting forth an argument, they don’t submit their argument by looking at the set of the argument acting upon itself.

This is called the self referential step.

Peacegirl: He looked very carefully at his observations and inferences thereof.

Ecmandu: For example:

What if someone thought your argument was absolutely true, but having freewill is the only thing that matters to them and brings them satisfaction, and then!! They realize, “wait! I can make freewill true just by always picking the worst possible choice, and I will be the defender of freewill for everyone, eventually, they’ll all see me as a hero, so, that’s the best possible choice!”

Peacegirl: How can people pick the worst possible choice when that is impossible to do? What you don’t understand is that people will be able to connive, cheat, and do any number of things to take advantage of others IF THEY WANT TO. But they won’t want to under the changes conditions of a no blame world. Eliminating all first blows is what this discovery accomplishes. That should make you overjoyed but instead I sense resentment.

Ecmandu: Your author never checked his own argument against its own set, and because of this, he wrote a failed argument. Had he checked it, he’d have seen the disproof and never would have published.

Peacegirl: He spent his whole adult life refining his discovery so that others could understand it. He knew what he was talking about!

Ecmandu: But instead, we are left with a nonsense book.

Peacegirl: A book you never read! Wow!

Peacegirl,

People don’t read books on message forums to engage in discussion or debate, they expect you to condense and defend it.

Peacegirl: I have and I am, but it can’t be condensed to the point where it loses its cohesiveness.

Ecmandu: They might watch videos or read studies that are linked, but not whole books.

Peacegirl: I wonder what the famous philosophers would have felt about people skimming their work or reading cliff notes.

Ecmandu: That’s basic forum etiquette …

As I pointed out, you’re argument is instructing people who only gain satisfaction from the idea of freewill, to commit the worst possible actions upon themselves and/or others.

Peacegirl: How can that be when I’m not instructing anybody to do anything. If a person wants to believe in free will, he is free to do so just like people are free to believe the earth is flat when most of the world knows for a fact that it’s round.

Ecmandu: You can’t wiggle out of that.

Peacegirl: I just did.

Ecmandu: It never occurred to you or the author, that the ONLY thing that matters to a large majority of people is the existence of freewill.

Peacegirl: That’s because they think something is being taken away from them and they also want to take pride in their accomplishments which is not a bad thing as long as they know they didn’t accomplish anything of their own free will. Determinism is a threat for that reason but it need not be especially when the knowledge that man’s will is not free is the gateway that opens the door to world peace.

Ecmandu: The argument was never analyzing its own set upon itself.

This was an oversight of the author .

Peacegirl: There were no oversights.


Ecmandu: As I pointed out, you’re argument is instructing people who only gain satisfaction from the idea of freewill, to commit the worst possible actions upon themselves and/or others.

Peacegirl: How can that be when I’m not instructing anybody to do anything. If a person wants to believe in free will, he is free to do so just like people are free to believe the earth is flat when most of the world knows for a fact that it’s round.


Actually, you are telling people what to do. You’re telling them that the only thing that means anything to them (freewill) can ONLY be demonstrated by making the worst possible decision every time! You are telling people that!!

Because the only thing they gain satisfaction from, is that freewill exists, and the only way they can prove freewill by your argument is to do what they know is the worst possible decision for themselves and others, they will hurt self and others to give themselves the greatest satisfaction.

HONESTLY!! Your guru did not run the set of his own argument upon itself to make his argument!

Your protestations are not arguments, they are merely protestations. They are far from proofs.

You know what else these people can do besides making the worst possible decision for themselves and others to prove freewill exists, they can laugh and call bullshit on all of this nonsense that you are spouting. And through their own freewill, can help construct a more peaceful species.

Ecmandu: As I pointed out, you’re argument is instructing people who only gain satisfaction from the idea of freewill, to commit the worst possible actions upon themselves and/or others.

*Peacegirl: It is doing no such thing. All it’s doing is demonstrating why will is not free. Believing that will is free cannot affect the outcome when this principle is introduced.

Peacegirl: I’m not instructing anybody to do anything. If a person wants to believe in free will, he is free to do so just like people are free to believe the earth is flat when most of the world knows for a fact that it’s round.


Ecmandu: Actually, you are telling people what to do. You’re telling them that the only thing that means anything to them (freewill) can ONLY be demonstrated by making the worst possible decision every time! You are telling people that!!

Peacegirl: No I’m not. Free will cannot be demonstrated because a person cannot pick the least preferable choice even in his effort to prove that he has free will. Ironic, isn’t it?

Ecmandu: Because the only thing they gain satisfaction from, is that freewill exists, and the only way they can prove freewill by your argument is to do what they know is the worst possible decision for themselves and others, they will hurt self and others to give themselves the greatest satisfaction.

Ecmandu: They aren’t proving anything at all because in their effort to show they can move toward dissatisfaction is in the direction of greater satisfaction which proves, once again, that their efforts are in vain.

Ecmandu: HONESTLY!! Your guru did not run the set of his own argument upon itself to make his argument!

Peacegirl: He was a visionary!

Ecmandu: Your protestations are not arguments, they are merely protestations. They are far from proofs.

Peacegirl: The only direction from here to there is the movement away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction. What gives each person greater satisfaction each moment is unique to them. But one thing is certain, under the changes conditions they won’t be able to get greater satisfaction hurting others in any way because it will be the worst possible choice. You should be rejoicing!

Ecmandu: You know what else these people can do besides making the worst possible decision for themselves and others to prove freewill exists, they can laugh and call bullshit on all of this nonsense that you are spouting. And through their own freewill, can help construct a more peaceful species.

Peacegirl: I am not rebutting your use of the term free will. The author used it throughout the book to mean “of my own desire” but by now you should know that nobody does anything of their own free will.

Peacegirl !!

Peacegirl: No I’m not. Free will cannot be demonstrated because a person cannot pick the least preferable choice even in his effort to prove that he has free will. Ironic, isn’t it?

Me!!!:

That’s not a logical defense against my argument, that’s just a brainwashed cult members assertion without supporting argument.

You managed to avoid my best argument by ignoring and not addressing it head on.

Peacegirl: No I’m not. Free will cannot be demonstrated because a person cannot pick the least preferable choice even in his effort to prove that he has free will. Ironic, isn’t it?

Me!!!:

That’s not a logical defense against my argument, that’s just a brainwashed cult members assertion without supporting argument.

Ecmandu: Brainwashed cult? You’re out the door. It’s not only a logical defense, it’s been proven.

Ecmandu: You managed to avoid my best argument by ignoring and not addressing it head on.

Peacegirl: There’s nothing to address if you begin with the premise that free will exists. Any effort to prove this is impossible because proof of free will requires you to go back in time, reverse what has already been done to show that you could have chosen otherwise. So any argument you make is certainly not an actual proof. I’m not telling you what to believe. If you think he was wrong then believe what you want.

That’s a straw man argument. I’m a compatibalist. A compatibalist believes that in order to smoke a cigarette, that a cigarette must exist.

I am not making the freewill argument, I’m making the compatibalist argument.

And yes, you still haven’t responded to my disproof through self reference yet.

That’s a straw man argument. I’m a compatibalist. A compatibalist believes that in order to smoke a cigarette, that a cigarette must exist.

Peacegirl: Strawman. A determinist believes the same yet doesn’t create an arbitrary definition of free will so they can hold people morally responsible which is an utter contradiction.

Ecmandu: I am not making the freewill argument, I’m making the compatibalist argument.

Peacegirl: I know that but can’t prove that we have free will. The fact that you know we can’t go back in time is not a strawman. It’s the only way proof can be obtained. Compatibilists can’t see their illogic due to an arbitrary definition of free will which they try to make compatible with determinism but it can’t be. You can’t have free will and no free will. They are opposites. They want to have their cake and eat it too! I know your ilk, you won’t let go for a minute to rethink your position even though it’s a semantic shift but does nothing to change the status quo of blame and punishment.

Ecmandu: And yes, you still haven’t responded to my disproof through self reference yet.

Peacegirl: There is nothing self-referential about the truth of determinism.

This reply of yours is what’s called a thread killer. It’s so stupid, that nobody sees a point to reply anymore. Excepting this post to teach you another posting forum term.

Ecmandu: This reply of yours is what’s called a thread killer. It’s so stupid, that nobody sees a point to reply anymore. Excepting this post to teach you another posting forum term.

Peacegirl: Then the thread will die a natural death! But it is you that’s the poor loser, not me!

And you did it again.

You see, everyone has the opportunity to resurrect a thread killer, to make the thread live again, but you just failed to do that.

If making the thread live again I have to agree with you, I’d rather the thread go bye bye!

No, all you have to do is debate the points in front of you to keep a thread live.

You’ve refused to do this, for what? 4 pages now.

You expect to be taken seriously after that!?!?!

Compatibilism works perfectly well as long as neither free will or determinism are regarded as absolute
As absolute free will would invalidate determinism and absolute determinism would invalidate free will
What actually exists in reality is limited free will and limited determinism so compatibilism is the norm